Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning: Deemed Measure Review and Update

Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning:Deemed Measure Review and Update

Regional Technical ForumJune 29th, 2010

Overview of Measure• Measure Description

– Early retirement of residential refrigerators and freezers• In-home pickup: main method• Retailer pickup: programs beginning to explore this option

• Measure Requirement– Must be in working condition (makes cold)– At least 10 ft3 in capacity– Must be decommissioned and its components recycled

• History– Originally, RTF established a deemed calculator– June 2005 – RTF established deemed savings for residential refrigerator recycling– April 2007 – RTF established deemed savings for residential freezer recycling

• Scale & Available PNW Data– 7 PNW Utilities’ 2009 programs recycled 34,000 units

• Translates to nearly 4 aMW using current RTF values– Data collected by JACO in the following utility programs:

• Avista, ETO, Snohomish, Tacoma, Seattle, PSE, and Idaho Power• Current Deemed Measures:

Sector Procost Full Measure Name

Incremental Capital Cost

($/unit)

Incremental O&M Costs

($/unit)Measure Life

(years)

Annual Savings @

Site (kwh/yr)

B/C Ratio (5th Plan)

Residential Refrigerator Decommissioning and Recycling $ 140 $ - 9 905 2.2Residential Freezer Decommissioning and Recycling $ 140 $ - 8 925 2.0

2

Measure’s Relationship to 6th PlanReason(s) it's not in the Plan• The Plan already accounts for savings from natural replacement of the existing stock.

– The baseline condition is "standard practice" efficiency of new equipment at the start of the Plan (2010). – With a 20-year life, all refrigerators get replaced during the planning period with at least the baseline condition efficiency.

• Savings from refrigerator decommissioning only last until the unit would be replaced on normal burnout, something well short of 20 years.

– The savings from existing equipment efficiency to current standard practice efficiency are already "locked in" since codes/standards/standard practices are not assumed to go backward.

– There is no additional savings potential over the long-term from decommissioning.

• The Plan acknowledges it does not provide an exhaustive list of all the available cost-effective measures that can be performed over the next 20 years.

Reason(s) utilities can claim "early retirement" savings• Decommissioning saves energy. • Decommissioning gets the Region to the long-term target early (speeds up natural replacement)

– Assuming the savings are cost-effective, this adds value to the Region.– Cost-effectiveness depends on a number of factors

• how programs are structured, the natural replacement cycle, the age distribution of the stock being decommissioned, the cost of the decommissioning, the timing and depth of future improvements in standards, etc.

Note: Since savings from refrigerator decommissioning are much like the savings achieved with code/standard changes, we have to take care not to count them twice when reporting regional savings in the regional roll-up.

3

Measure Analysis OverviewEnergy Savings = (kWhold)×(Fpartuse) ×(Baselineadjustment)

• kWhold: Average Annual Energy Use of Recycled Refrigerators (and Freezers)

• Fpartuse: Part-Use Factor• Takes into account units that would have been operated part of

the year, or not at all

• Baselineadjustment: Baseline Adjustments– Takes into account units that would have been taken out of

service without the program

Measure Life = Remaining Useful Life of the EquipmentMeasure Cost = Collection Cost + Recycle Cost + Incentive +

Program Administration Costs4

“It is clear that, despite over a decade of practice, evaluations of appliance recycling programs continue to suffer from significant uncertainty in key performance parameters.”

[Eric Daly, Val Jensen, and Bruce Wall] “Evaluation of the Energy and Environmental Effects of the California Appliance Early Retirement and Recycling Program,” Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Seattle, 2003.

5

Site/Lab Factor: Adjustment for DOE test lab performance to in situ performance

kWh at-manufacture: AHAM (extrapolated) average annual energy use (lab-tested) for each model year

kWh degradation: Increased energy use from efficiency degradation over time (kWh degradationi = unit agei x performance degradation factor)

n: # units recycled in 2009 (JACO 2009 PNW data)

C: correction factor to adjust 2009 data to a deemed value for 2010-20126

Energy SavingsDetermining kWhold


Site/Lab Factor = 0.81

7

Report Summary Results (Ratio of In-situ to Lab

Energy Use)

Notes

Peterson, John et. al. “Gross Savings Estimation for Appliance Recycling Programs: The Lab Versus In situ Measurement Imbroglio and Related Issues.” 2007 IEPEC

202 units were tested both In-situ (2 weeks) and in the lab (following DOE protocol)

0.81 (Table 12)

Cadmus, et. al. “Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation Report”. For the CPUC. 2/8/2010

Added sites to above. In situ monitoring (166) and lab monitoring (137).

0.81 Simple average of “cool” CA climates (Table 123)

Issue: DOE Lab Test at 90 deg ambient, empty, no door openings; different than “real world”.


kWh At-Manufacture• AHAM Energy Use Data

– Average manufacturer-reported at-manufacture energy use, by year of production.

– Data back to 1970’s; extrapolated beyond that– These are the data used by the current RTF analysis

• JACO Energy Use Data (not used in savings calc)– At-manufacture energy use by model– Data available for some, but not all (~52%)

8

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

kWh/

year

Model Year

RefrigeratorsAHAM (extrapolated) JACO Data

• AHAM: Market Average, with extrapolation in earlier years; JACO: Average of models with a match 9

On average, for JACO data collected, JACO kWh/year about 7% higher than AHAM

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600 19

5019

5219

5419

5619

5819

6019

6219

6419

6619

6819

7019

7219

7419

7619

7819

8019

8219

8419

8619

8819

9019

9219

9419

9619

9820

0020

0220

04

Num

ber o

f Uni

ts

Model Year

RefrigeratorsN Recycled N Jaco kWh Data

10

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

kWh/

year

Model Year

FreezersAHAM (extrapolated) JACO Data

• AHAM: Market Average, with extrapolation in earlier years; JACO: Average of models with a match 11

On average, for JACO data collected, JACO kWh/year about 20% higher than AHAM

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800 19

5019

5219

5419

5619

5819

6019

6219

6419

6619

6819

7019

7219

7419

7619

7819

8019

8219

8419

8619

8819

9019

9219

9419

9619

9820

0020

0220

04

Num

ber o

f Uni

ts

Model Year

FreezersN Recycled N Jaco kWh Data

12

Report Summary Results Notes

ADM. “2009 Second Refrigerator Recycling Program NV Energy – Northern Nevada Program Year 2009; M&V Report.” Feb 2010

Reference to Cadmus data on CA program (2/2010 report)

1.25%per year

Methodology not described

Miller and Pratt, “Estimates of Refrigerator Loads in Public Housing Based on Metered Consumption Data”, October 1998

Metered 104 existing & 17 new units. Developed a regression function, with age as a variable.

1.37%perYear

1998

KEMA. “2003 EM&V RARP Study: Verification, Degradation & Market Potential Analysis”. For SCE. Dec 2004.

Using data from 136 lab (DOE) metered “old” units, compared to new consumption data, tried to find a relationship.

(93% of the units showed increased usage)

Couldn’t provide a quantitative conclusion

ICF Consulting. “Evaluation of the Energy and Environmental Effects of the California Appliance Early Retirement and Recycling Program” for CPUC. 2003.

Referenced in SnoPUD evaluations (did not find original report)

0.6%per year


Performance Degradation Factor = 1.25%/year

13


C Factor = 0.95

14

• Issue– JACO data represent mix of models recycled in 2009; however, deemed

savings are for 2010 and beyond (proposed 2-year sunset date)• Suite of units recycled are expected to be of newer vintages (and therefore, more

efficient) over the course of program delivery as older units are removed from circulation through the program and naturally. So, kWhold should be expected to fall over time.

• Solution– C Factor

• Adjusting the 2009 model years by +1, +2, and +3 years, results in:– Refrigerators: 97% (2010) to 91% (2012) of savings calculated for 2009– Freezers: 98% (2010) to 92% (2012) of savings calculated for 2009

• Assumes same recycled model age distribution as occurred in 2009– Sunset Date: 2 years

• Adjust savings based on most recent program model year data

Energy SavingsDetermining Fpartuse

Part Use Factor = 0.91• Based on participant surveys (of CA Statewide 06-08 ARP by Cadmus, 2010)

• Simple Average combined factor for the three utilities = 0.91

15

• Source: SnoPUD Evaluation– What consumer would have done

• References to: ICF 2003, Heschong Mahone 2002, ICF 2003, and City of Fort Collins 2005– Whether replaced

• JACO data collected through program• Where replaced with a new unit, new unit’s consumption is subtracted

– This reduces the adjustment to 57% (assuming error is fixed)• Uncovered an error or two

– Energy use of models newer than the average (1980) are not included in the average UEC– Adjustments are not summed properly

16

Current RTF

Energy SavingsDetermining Baselineadjustment

Adjustment Description Not Replaced Replaced w/New Unit6% 6%7% 7%10% 10%11% 0%0% 6%70% 74%40% 60%

Overall Adjustment => 73%

Replaced w/another used unitSpace Conditioning Interaction

Share of Units Recycled =>Net-to-Gross Adjustment=>

Kept UnusedRetired w/o Program

Used Part-Time

What would have happened to the Refrigerator or Freezer without the Program?

17


1. Would have kept, but not used

2. Would have discarded, and unit destroyed

3. Would have kept and used

4. Would have discarded, but unit still in use

- Baseline adjustment is typically determined through participant and non-participant surveys.

- Analysis can be complicated and varies.

Subject to an Adjustment

Not Subject to an Adjustment

18


Baselineadjustment = 57% (refrigerators); 68% (freezers) Program Study Refrigerator NTG Freezer NTG ReferenceCom Ed, PY 1 (6/08 - 3/09) 70% 83% Summit Blue report, 12/2/2009, Table 3, page 3ETO, PY 2008-09 50% 50% Innovologie report, 1/2010, Table 33, page 40PG&E, 2004-05 50% 61%SCE, 2004-05 66% 72%SDG&E, 2004-05 55% 75%PG&E, 2006-08 51% NASCE, 2006-08 56% NASDG&E, 2006-08 58% NASimple Avg 57% 68%

ADM Associates, 4/2008, pages 3-11 and 3-14

Cadmus Group, Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation Report, 2/8/2010, Table 134, page 150

19

Energy SavingsIssue/Discussion

Proposed Baseline Adjustment method assumes a 1-for-1 reduction in the # of refrigerators remaining in the population.

(Less refrigerators per household)• This assumption causes an overstatement of savings.

- In some cases, units that are recycled would have been used* in a “required” situation. Because of the program, the user* is forced to acquire an alternative unit.

- On average, we would expect the efficiency of the alternative unit to be higher than the efficiency of the recycled unit

- In these cases, savings should be kWhRecycledUnit – kWhAlternativeUnit, not simply kWhRecycledUnit

• However, there are no data to support an adjustment.- Example: Existing RTF method subtracts the new unit’s energy use (assumed to be Energy

Star energy use) for all units reported by program participants as “replaced with a new unit”; and assigns 0 kWh/yr savings to all units reported as “replaced with a used unit”.• Issue: Program participant responses are mostly irrelevant to this issue; whether the subsequent user* would have

used the unit in a “required” situation is relevant (and unknown).- What value to use for kWhAlternativeUnit?

• Solution: (?) Options – Judgment Call- A: Assume it’s a small effect, so ignore it.- B: Assume some amount (50%?) of refrigerators are “replaced” in some way, and assume

the “replacement” unit uses (500?) kWh/year.(kWhAlternativeUnit)

* The “user” in this case could be the program participant, or the next would-be owner of the unit.

Energy SavingsRecap & Results

20

Energy Savings = (kWhold)×(Fpartuse) ×(Baselineadjustment)

Variable Refrigerators Freezers site/lab factor 81% 81% kWh at manufacture (avg) 1,078 988 kwh degradataion (avg) 368 417 C factor 95% 95%kWh old (avg) 1,117 1,085F part use 91% 91%Baseline adjustment 57% 68%Savings 582 675

Measure Life

• Continue using RTF’s relationship of age to measure life (graph)– Updated to 2010 as start year– Prior to 1975, remaining life constant at 6.1 years

• Apply measure life to all 2009 JACO data to develop a weighted average

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

3019

7019

7119

7219

7319

7419

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

10

Mea

sure

Life

Model Year

Remaining Measure Life vs. Model Year

TypeAverage

Model YearN

Weighted Average Measure Life (yrs)

REF 1984.7 23,714 9.1FRZ 1978.2 8,350 6.2

Measure Cost• Current RTF assumed measure cost: $140/unit

– $110 for implementation• Pickup costs• Recycling costs• Data collection and tracking

– $30 customer incentive

• Proposed updated measure cost: $130/unit– $100 for implementation

• Costs have come down (per JACO and Phil Sisson estimates)– Customer incentive remains in the RTF measure cost since it’s an

integral part of the program (not a transfer payment)

22

• Option A

• Option B

• Update measure with new program data w/in 2 years• Decision?


Incremental Capital Cost ($/unit)

Measure Life (years)

Annual Savings @ Site (kwh/yr)

Total Societal Benefit / Cost Ratio (TRC B/C Ratio)

Residential Freezer Decommissioning and Recycling $ 130 6.0 675 2.4

Residential Refrigerator Decommissioning and Recycling $ 130 9.0 582 3.0

Proposed Measures (Results)

23


Incremental Capital Cost ($/unit)

Measure Life (years)

Annual Savings @ Site (kw h/yr)

Total Societal Benefit / Cost Ratio (TRC B/C Ratio)

Residential Freezer Decommissioning and Recycling $ 130 6.0 555 2.0

Residential Refrigerator Decommissioning and Recycling $ 130 9.0 482 2.5

Other Questions• Utilities are starting programs to recycle appliances collected by New

Appliance Dealers (not in-home pickup). – Should these be handled as a separate deemed measure?– Baseline adjustment could be different for these types of programs.

– Adjustment may be expected to be lower for retail-pickup programs than in-home pickup programs since retailers often offer this service already

– However, recent survey results in ComEd territory showed higher NTG for retail-pickup versus in-home pickup (very small sample size, though)

– Proposal: • Provisionally deem these with the same values. (no distinct measure)• Evaluation suggested.• Review in 2 years. (likely to have more data from national sources)

• Should Residential-style refrigerators from non-residential buildings be allowed?• JACO reports some utilities allow these, but they’ve only come in in very small

numbers.• Proposal: Yes, allow them.

24

Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning: Deemed Measure Review and Update

Documents

Transcript of Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning: Deemed Measure Review and Update